Deutsche Bank AG
v.
E-business International.
[Indexed as: Deutsche Bank v. E-business]
[INDEXED AS: DEUTSCHE-BANKERSTRUST.COM]
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
Administrative Panel Decision
Case No.: WIPO D2000-0504
Commenced: 6 June 2000
Judgement: 11 August 2000
Presiding Panelist: Dawn Osborne
Domain name Domain name dispute resolution Well-known mark Acquisition of firm Confusingly similar No rights or legitimate interests Bad faith registration and use Intent to demand unwarranted profits.
Complainant has gained world-wide notoriety for its mark DEUTSCHE BANK, which it has used for decades. Recently, Complainant acquired Bankerstrust, which has its own homepage at BANKERSTRUST.COM. Respondent registered the domain name DEUTSCHE-BANKERSTRUST.COM. Complainant asks for transfer of the domain name. Respondent did not file a response.
Held, Name Transferred to Complainant.
The disputed domain name was confusingly similar to Complainants
marks. Respondents use of the word TRUST causes confusion because it is
used by Complainants affiliate.
Respondent has no legitimate interests or rights in the domain name
in dispute. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor did it receive
any rights or consent to use Complainants trademark. Moreover, the webpage
has not been used.
Respondent has used and registered the domain name in bad baith.
Respondent has not provided any evidence to counter the claim of registering
the domain with the intent of transferring it for an amount greater than
out-of-pocket costs. Also, Respondents contact information was kept secret.
Policies referred to
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted August 26, 1999
Panel Decision referred to
--
Osborne, Panelist: -
1. The Parties
Complainant
Deutsche Bank AG Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
represented by Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsh, Rechtanwaelte of Maybachstr.6,
D-70469 Stuttgart, Germany.
Respondent
E Business International, 2301 Collins Ave #A-603 Miami Beach, FL 33139,
USA.
2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
Domain Name
"deutsche-bankerstrust.com"
Registrar
Network Solutions Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed on May 26, 2000. WIPO verified that the Complaint
satisfies the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and that payment was properly
made. The panelist is satisfied this is the case.
The Complaint was properly notified in accordance with Rules, paragraph
2(a) and a No Response was filed by the Respondent. The Respondent is in
default.
The administrative panel was properly constituted. The undersigned
panelist submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality
and Independence.
No further submissions were received by WIPO or the Panel as a consequence
of which the date scheduled for the issuance of the Panels decision was
August 7, 2000.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the owner of registered trade marks for DEUTSCHE
BANK in Germany and the USA.
5. Parties Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant states that:
1. It is Germanys largest bank and one of the worlds leading banking
institutions. It was founded in 1870 in Berlin. The complainant uses the
domain names "deutsche-bank.com", "deutschebank.com", "deutsche-bank.de"
and "deutschebank.de". Due to decades of use the mark Deutsche Bank has
become well known;
2. It recently acquired the American company and its affiliate companies.
The homepage of Bankerstrust is found at bankerstrust.com.
3. The domain name is not in total but is in large part identical to
the Complainants famous name and trade mark or is at least confusingly
similar. The word "Trust" prevents no confusion as it is used by the Complainants
affiliate.
4. The Respondent is not making any legitimate use of the Domain Name.
It is not a licensee of the Complainant and has not received any permission
or consent to use the trade mark Deutsche Bank. The Respondents web page
simply states "under contruction" and has not been used;
5. The domain name has been used and registered in bad faith. The address
details were not correct in the Who is Database. The Respondent disclosed
an e-mail address and fax number over the telephone when the Complainant
offered to buy the domain name. In fact the Complainant sent a cease and
desist letter instead and has received no response.
B. Respondent
The Respondent has not filed a Response and is in default.
6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure
Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
1. The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name; and
3. The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or confusing similarity.
Given the circumstances the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainants DEUTSCHE BANK mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interest of the Respondent.
The Respondent has not filed a Response and does not appear to have
any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
C. Bad Faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Rules sets out four non exclusive criteria which
shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith
including "the Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring
the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the
trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant for valuable
consideration in excess of the Respondents documented out-of-pocket costs
directly related to the domain name".
In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, there appears to
be no explanation of the facts other than that the Respondent registered
the Complainants trade mark as a domain name with an intent to use the
domain name to demand unwarranted profit in bad faith and that the Respondent
has so used the Domain Name in question. The Respondent also appears to
have sought to keep his contact details secret.
7. Decision
In the light of the foregoing, the panelist decides that the Domain
Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant s trademark and the Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests relating to the Domain Name which
was registered and used in bad faith.
Accordingly, in the light of the above, the panelist requires that
the registration of the Domain Name DEUTSCHE-BANKERSTRUST.COM be transferred
to the Complainant.
|